• An increased debt-load is falling on a shrinking property taxpayer base
• Freeing up homeowners’ savings would genuinely boost area economic prosperity
• Politically-directed spending is inherently less efficient and effective than market-driven investing

Next month San Antonians will go to the polls to vote on $1.2 billion in bond proposals.  It’s a whopper of a debt-binge that includes funding for unfinished projects authorized by prior bond elections, some of questionable legality, and others representing wasteful jurisdictional overlap.

Also on the ballot will be two constitutional amendments, both aimed at reducing property taxes.  The issues are related.

Part of the tax we pay on the investment we put into our homes goes toward paying off that debt.  The city’s ability to continue tapping that source is subject to a couple of cross-currents.

One is soaring property appraisals by Bexar County.  This allows the city to pull in more revenue without raising rates.  Unfortunately, they opt to spend this windfall rather than cut those rates, or at least raise exemptions.

Texas has been picking up the slack on the latter.

In addition to the ones on the ballot in a few weeks, a couple more exemption-raising constitutional amendments were approved in November.  Any reduction in this damaging tax is progress, and it puts citizens on more equitable footing with businesses that get favorable tax treatment.

But only some taxpayers benefit.

To state the obvious, this is unfair, and it increases the burden on the remaining, shrinking tax base, some of whom may eventually say “to heck with this” and move outside city limits. 

Mayor Ron Nirenberg on the other hand, believes this exodus is happening due to a lack of “affordable housing,” and prospective homebuyers “losing … bidding wars … to outside investors.” 

The fact is, those investors are driven to these safer assets by poor monetary policy in Washington D.C. 

City council practically salivates at the opportunity to take advantage of this, and other federal largesse, to spend on their pet projects.  However, they can’t bring themselves to modestly raise exemptions on property taxes without the state compelling them to?       

During the last effort to raise exemptions a year ago, Councilman Manny Pelaez (D8) said the savings to homeowners of the proposed exemption hike to 5% would be “meaningless.”  We agree.  That’s why we believe eliminating the whole scheme would make it meaningful. 

The reaction of most politicians, regardless of jurisdiction or political party, is typically “but how will we fill the revenue hole in the budget?”  Whether that’s due to lack of respect for citizens, envy or ignorance is anyone’s guess. 

We tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t know any better.

For one, taxpayers will not simply stuff the reclaimed $400+ million in tax seizures under the mattress.  They’ll inevitably go shopping, thereby pumping up sales tax revenue.  Or even better, some might use it to launch a business venture, hiring more sales tax-paying employees. 

Maybe in addition to appealing to residents to “buy local,” our elected representatives should also urge them to “invest local.”

They could also show more respect to enterprising individuals and businesses by eliminating city programs that are better- and/or already handled by these folks.  As it is, they appear to have more faith in their ability to spend taxpayer money than they do in that of the taxpayers’ themselves.

For example, rather than expanding control and increasing subsidization of “food access” programs, how about removing obstacles to its development, and selling plots of city-owned land to urban farmers? 

Members of council who have owned a business should know all of this.  If not, they’re more prone to cronyism.

If all this is a bridge too far for their ego, they could just add another percentage or two to the city’s sales tax rate.  If they agree with Councilman Pelaez’ aforementioned sentiment, one would assume they’d feel the same about consumers paying a few more dollars for say, another T.V.

If citizens are serious about stopping municipal versions of federal omnibus spending bills, it is critical to also demand the elimination of this coercive tax.  It would bump up the GDP portion of our state–high debt/GDP, which itself calls into question how much more we can take on with a handicapped ability to pay for it.

Shifting to the most efficient form of taxation would force the city to depend on the health of the economy for its spending, rather than on devalued dollars.  It would have more incentive to clear excessively burdensome hurdles to commercial activity.

Otherwise, they can count on us wasting valuable time protesting appraisals, putting on workshops to teach others how to do the same, numbing ourselves to it all by outsourcing the escrow process to our mortgage lenders, etc. 

How much more debt are YOU willing to take on, and how much more debt CAN the city take on?!   The bonds only raise those bigger questions about the tax burdens we already carry, and the burdensome solutions of increasingly higher taxes the city keeps falling back on.  Force the city to look for answers.   

Next month, citizens can put a stop to the city borrowing like a teenager who stole his parents’ credit card.  We should also put them in a timeout until they stop plundering our bank accounts.

The post A ‘No’ on the Bonds is Hollow Without a ‘No’ on Property Taxes first appeared on Infuse SA.

“Now that we can venture back out … let’s go back to stores. Where there seems to be an Amazon or UPS truck on every block, many deliveries are using up a lot of the world’s resources. This is great for Amazon (Jeff Bezos is burning up our money going to the edge of space) and gives employment to local drivers — and to a great many underpaid, overworked warehouse workers with little to no benefits, most of them in other states.”

While much of the above passage is problematic …
– comfort with government ‘giving us permission’ to go out …
– the odd implication that 10 people driving to shops consumes less energy than 1 truck hitting 10 houses …
– the poo-pooing of employment as his heart bleeds in assumption that the conditions agreed to are horrendous …
– and no mention that many Amazon employees work here in Bexar County and San Antonio
… he makes a good point about the value of actually going out to shop.

Still, one other sentiment in the above passage belies a couple problems with society: the one about “space.”

At the risk of splitting hairs, we work to exchange our earnings for other things we want. Presumably, we do so in the most rational way: lowest price, best quality, most convenient, etc. Once we make that transaction with whomever, and we’ve traded our money for the good or service, it’s no longer ‘our money’.

Also, so what if he’s going to space! Who cares if he goes to Vegas and blows his money on gambling and prostitutes? Jeff Bezos/Amazon have done a lot of good for society as evidenced by how large they are. If they weren’t satisfying customers, they wouldn’t have attained such size!

There’s much envy inferred in such statements, a sourness about one’s own inability to achieve the same. This wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t translate into votes for attention-hungry politicians who would love nothing more than to get into office, seize back some of “our money,” and redistribute it to a bunch of causes favored by sore folks like Mr. Brandon who couldn’t do it himself.

Will he and others get raw when Holt Truck Centers bring greater wealth to our area (see other InfuseSA post today)? Will he still be whining when regular folk can travel to space thanks to the ground laid by Bezos and Elon Musk, who literally had the resources to burn (pardon the pun) to push into that frontier?

#wordsmatter#noBSzone#noslantinformation#whatsyourbeef#bexarcounty#sanantonio#bipartisan

The post Words Matter, Swap Envy for Respect, Appreciation first appeared on Infuse SA.